Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Greer v. State, 673 N.W.2d 151.

46 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Mervel George Jones, III Minn. Ct. App. 2025
State of Minnesota v. Mervel George Jones, III Minn. Ct. App. 2025
“[I]mpartiality is the very foundation of the American judicial system.” Greer v. State, 6
In re the Marriage of: Towobola Abimbola Oladejo v. Olanrewaju Muideen Oladejo Minn. Ct. App. 2025
Howard William Amos v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Howard William Amos v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2024
A. Novelty For petitioner to succeed on a claim under the novelty exception, the claim must be “so novel that its legal basis was not reasonably available at the time of the direct appeal.”
Ronald Lewis Greer v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Ronald Lewis Greer v. State of Minnesota Minn. 2024
Greer v. State (Greer III), (affirming the denial of Greer’s first petition); Greer v. State (Greer IV), (consolidating, and affirming the denial of, Greer’s second and third petitions).
In re the Marriage of: Robert William Bessenbacher v. Olga Sergeyevna Bessenbacher, Itasca County Minn. Ct. App. 2023
In re the Marriage of: Robert William Bessenbacher v. Olga Sergeyevna Bessenbacher, Itasca County Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Justin Kainoa Kaneakua Minn. Ct. App. 2023
State of Minnesota v. Justin Kainoa Kaneakua Minn. Ct. App. 2023
VI; Minn. Const. art. I, § 6; see Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577 (1986)
Randy Terrell Mayberry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Randy Terrell Mayberry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2023
The novelty exception applies only if a claim is “so novel that its legal basis was not reasonably 7 available at the time of the direct appeal.”
State of Minnesota v. Chad Edward Danberry Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577 (1986); (“[I]mpartiality is the very foundation of the American judicial system.”).
State of Minnesota v. Kenyatta Devine Buckles Minn. Ct. App. 2023
See Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577 (1986); (“[I]mpartiality is the very foundatio n of the American judicial system.”).
State of Minnesota v. Allison Feierabend Scudder Minn. Ct. App. 2022
(citing Rose v. Clark , 478 U.S. 570, 577 (1986) (citing Tumey v. Ohio , 273 U.S. 510 (1927)), and Greer v. State , ).
Ronald Lewis Greer, Minn. 2022
Greer v. State (Greer III), (affirming denial of first petition); Greer v. State (Greer IV), (affirming denial of second and third petitions).
In the Matter of: Cody Scott Johnson, obo Minor v. Juana Chavez-Martinez Minn. Ct. App. 2021
An impartial trier of fact “is the very foundation of the American judicial system.” Greer v. State
State of Minnesota v. Andre Joseph Shafer Minn. Ct. App. 2021
Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577, 106 S. Ct. 3101 (1986)
Justin Lee Ironhawk v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2020
State of Minnesota v. Andre Lamar Beasley Minn. Ct. App. 2019
Theodore Pierre Jerry v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2019
clearly 11 cannot constitute bias.’” ().
State v. Mouelle 922 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2019
State v. Mouelle 922 N.W.2d 706 Minn. 2019
Greer v. State , , 157 (Minn. 2004).
In re the Marriage of: Sheree Rosett Curry v. Michael David Levy Minn. Ct. App. 2018
Larry Jermaine McCool v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2018
two exceptions to the Knaffla rule: (1) “a postconviction court may hear and consider a claim that was previously known but not raised if the claim is so novel that its legal basis was not reasonably available at the time of the direct appeal” and (2) “when fairness so requires and the petitioner did not deliberately and inexcusably fail to raise the issue on direct appeal.” (quotation omitted).
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
Wheeler v. State 909 N.W.2d 558 Minn. 2018
See State v. Schlienz , , 367 (Minn. 2009) (stating that impartiality of the judiciary is valued "at all stages of [criminal] proceedings"); see also Greer v. State , , 155 (Minn. 2004) ("[I]mpartiality is the very foundation of the American judicial system.").
Raymond Joseph Traylor v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2017
“A petition for postconviction relief is a colla teral attack on a conviction that carries a presumption of regularity.”
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Starnes Minn. Ct. App. 2017
See, e.g., Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577, 106 S. Ct. 3101, 3105 (1986); see also Greer v. State , (“[I]mpartiality is the very foundation of the American judicial system.”).
John Patrick Murphy v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
John Patrick Murphy v. State of Minnesota Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Greer v. State 836 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2013
Greer v. State 836 N.W.2d 520 Minn. 2013
Greer v. State (Greer III)
Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Odegard v. State 767 N.W.2d 472 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
ANALYSIS “A petition for postconviction relief is a collateral attack on a conviction that carries a presumption of regularity.”
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
State v. Burrell 743 N.W.2d 596 Minn. 2008
Canon 3D(1) does not provide a precise formula that can automatically be applied.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
Schneider v. State 725 N.W.2d 516 Minn. 2007
(holding that prior adverse rulings do not establish bias).
State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
State v. Dorsey 701 N.W.2d 238 Minn. 2005
749 (1927)); (“[IJmpartiality is the very foundation of the American judicial system.”).
Powers v. State 695 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 2005
Powers v. State 695 N.W.2d 371 Minn. 2005
Thompson v. State 691 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 2005
Thompson v. State 691 N.W.2d 841 Minn. 2005